Mr. Speaker, we have yet another gag order in the form of a time allocation motion, a tactic that the Conservatives are unfortunately using far too often.

This is a record 29th time that this government has moved a time allocation motion. This record may belong in the Guinness Book of World Records, but it does nothing to improve the image of the House.

When the government imposes time allocation on all members of the House, it is essentially gagging all Canadians, and we cannot repeat that enough.

This government needs to take responsibility and do what people expect it to do. We should be able to have in-depth discussions of bills in the House. It is completely unconscionable and unacceptable that we are faced with yet another time allocation motion.

My question is simple: what is the government trying to hide and what reason does it have for cutting off debate on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.

I want to point out that today is the 15th day that Bill C-42 is being debated. That is 15 days. The member is concerned that something is being hidden. If something is being hidden, I do not know what it is. We have certainly been very clear in our position as to what the people of Canada should know and the steps we are taking in respect of the RCMP.

What is the response of the NDP members? Their amendments include deleting the short title of the act, which is enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act.

Why do we spend time debating that kind of title? What is it about enhancing accountability that the opposition does not want the RCMP to follow?

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the fact that the government has a record in terms of putting time allocation on numerous bills. The Liberal Party has been fairly clear in stating its support for the principle of the bill that is in question today, and we would ultimately like to see it pass. We have not been putting up speakers to try to delay, or anything of that nature, but we do question the level of frequency by which the government uses time allocation. We have seen it on numerous bills, whether it is Bill C-27, the first nations accountability bill, Air Canada, Canada Post, CP, the Panama free trade agreement, budget bills, back to work legislation with regard to Air Canada, the Financial System Review Act, the gun registry, the copyright bill, the pooled pension plan bill, one of my favourites, and the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these are bills, and more, on which the government has decided to invoke time allocation.

My question is more for the government House leader. Why does the government choose to introduce time allocation on many bills, which therefore takes away the responsibility of opposition members and all backbenchers, I would suggest, to provide due diligence in ensuring that every bill is given due process and is well debated and ultimately passed or defeated in the House of Commons? Why does the government go to this tool time after time?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is up on his feet quite a bit. I often turn on the television in my office and there is the member for Winnipeg North. I remember the member for Winnipeg North when we served together in the provincial legislature. He is a fine member. He gives his constituents good representation. I think they are pleased to see him here rather than the former party that used to occupy that seat. His constituents have taken one step up in terms of representation.

The member's position is that there has been enough debate. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that closure has been brought in. If there has been enough debate, then why is it not time to close it down and get on with a vote?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that exchange between my two friends across the way was the minister trying to help out my friend in the next election campaign or trying to severely curtail his chances of winning. I do not know if that goes on a brochure or not.

My point is this. The irony of the government using a closure motion, a motion to shut down debate on a bill called the RCMP accountability act, seems to be lost on it. The fact that the RCMP is in need of reform is well understood in this country. I have debated the minister often on this, and he has stonewalled efforts for years. Now, when the government has brought a bill forward, insufficient and incomplete, according to members themselves, the minister says we have talked enough about this; it is good enough, like it or lump it, this is how it is going to be.

We do not often get the chance to reform the RCMP. It does not happen every year. It does not happen every 10 years. One would think that getting the bill right would be important to the government, but it is not. What is important to the government is its continuing treatment of this place with disdain, and its fundamental disrespect of the voters we represent in saying that whatever the government's agenda is, so be it. It is the Conservative way or the highway. That is not good enough for Canadians. That level of arrogance, of uncertainty, in terms of dealing with our democratic institution, is something that will be lost.

Mr. Speaker, the members can heckle if they want, but we all know that the ability to govern requires a certain amount of intelligence, and from time to time a certain amount of humility, something the government is often lacking.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not born with the intelligence of the member across the way, but in my own humble way, I try to do my best and move things along.

NDP members have brought forward an amendment to get rid of the short title of the bill, which is the enhancing RCMP accountability act. Once we get down to a discussion to not include any reference to enhancing accountability, then where can the debate go from there? We are saying we need to enhance accountability. They are saying not to enhance accountability. After 15 days, the debate has ground to a halt. This is the only logical thing the government can do because there is no desire on the part of the opposition to enhance accountability. The opposition is against the concept of accountability. Those members have said so by wanting to remove the short title.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the last comments, my friend from Winnipeg North talked about the record of the government in bringing in time allocation. I would suggest it is a record in terms of the opposition delaying any bit of legislation as much as they possibly could. We have been dealing with this issue in committee as well. We have had 15 days in the House and time in committee.

The opposition House leader talked about accountability. At some point, the House has to be accountable to eventually come to a decision on something, and not drag it out forever. We have 13 police officers in our caucus who have all worked hard on this piece of legislation. The NDP said it can no longer support it, one of the reasons being that it will give the commissioner of the RCMP the ability to root out bad apples. The opposition states it wants accountability and yet it would not support measures that would give the commissioner the ability to hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member has raised these types of substantive issues. Canadians who have been following the debate understand the nature of the bill and what the government is trying to accomplish with the RCMP.

I am very proud of the RCMP, the commissioner, and the work the commissioner is doing with the RCMP. However, the commissioner cannot do it all by himself. He needs the support of the House. The attorneys general across Canada have told us they want reforms. We brought forward this bill for accountability, and I am pleased the Liberals are supporting it in principle. It is a very progressive bill in respect of dealing with issues of accountability.

At this point, all I can say is that I want to help the RCMP and the commissioner, and I am calling on the House to do exactly that by passing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the translation was correct, but what I was indicating was that the member said she wants to talk about substantive issues and content, and yet time and time again the NDP brings forward frivolous amendments. The one primary frivolous amendment it is bringing forward is wanting the people of Canada to listen to a debate, not about accountability or how to make a more effective national police force in Canada, but whether we should have a short title for the act that is called enhancing RCMP accountability act. Once we are into that kind of discussion, whatever substantive arguments there might be have all been exhausted.

We are talking about getting down to the issue. Let us vote. The substantive issues have clearly been discussed given the nature of the amendments that the NDP brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could enlighten the hon. minister. Perhaps he has been off the opposition benches for so long that he has forgotten the very cogent and sensible reason why members of the opposition parties, who have been part of committee processes by the rules of this place, could only put forward deletions at third reading, and in order to get priority for speaking opportunities in third reading debate choose such things as a deletion of the short title in order to get a speaking spot. I can assure anyone watching these proceedings that the official opposition will not waste its time saying why it wants to delete a short title. It will use that speaking opportunity to put forward concerns that are real and legitimate about this legislation.

I happen to know the rules quite well because I have the somewhat unique perspective of being able to bring forth both deletions and substantive amendments at report stage. In this case, it is a disservice to those who might be looking at this debate, or reading Hansard later, to think the official opposition is obsessed about the short title. It is simply looking for a chance for democratic debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that party's or that member's position is. She is not a member of the official opposition.

The official opposition is the New Democrat Party. I see from what they have brought forward that all of those issues have been fully considered and that we are beginning to spin our tires by bringing forward amendments that would delete the short title of the act.

As members of the Canadian public reflect back on Hansard, they will see clearly that members of opposition have taken an opportunity to engage in this debate. One after another, they are not talking about the substance of this bill. They are talking about process, not content.

The only questions that have involved the content of this bill at all have come from members on this side. On that note, I would like to ask the minister what he has heard. I can share the experience of the Yukon's “Sharing Common Ground” report, and the review of Yukon's police force asks for some very specific things, which are reflected directly in this bill in terms of accountability and in terms of improving the RCMP.

I was wondering if the minister would take an opportunity to comment on what he has heard across all provinces, particularly the Yukon experience, and how this bill is going to help that territory with its relationship with the RCMP?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member for his question. I also want to thank that member for the work he has done on this file and, prior to that, for his work as a correctional officer and even a member of the RCMP.

In fact, he was a member of both the correctional and enforcement areas of the law and certainly brings a lot to bear. The people of the Yukon are well served by an individual who puts his territory, his jurisdiction, right to the forefront of the discussion and ensures that people here in Ottawa hear what the people of Yukon are saying.

I have had the occasion to travel to the Yukon. At least once a year, I try to get there to hear what the people of the Yukon are saying. Generally speaking, I find good broad-based support for this legislation, not only from government officials but from people generally who want to see accountability in the RCMP. They want the RCMP to be everything it can be. This bill would do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the minister a question about shortening the debate on Bill C-42. I found it interesting that the committee spent only a few meetings discussing this bill. The last time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was amended, which was several years ago, it took months and months of serious study. I find the seriousness to be lacking this time.

In addition, the minister said at the outset that he was open to amendments because he felt that the bill was worth studying properly and that it might be lacking in some way. The only amendments the Conservatives accepted were their own, and they mainly had to do with correcting spelling mistakes.

Does the minister not feel that we did not have enough time and that we still need more time to debate this extremely important bill? Does he not think it arrogant not to listen to what the opposition has to say on the matter?

Mr. Speaker, I think there are certain very key principles that this act encompasses or encapsulates and brings forward to this House for our consideration.

Each one of those principles in the act have been thoroughly discussed, things like strengthening the RCMP review and complaint body; the new statutory framework for serious incident investigation involving RCMP members; and the modernization of the discipline, grievance and other human resource management processes.

These issues have been brought forward in this legislation. They have been debated for 15 days. That is not even taking into account the broader context of the knowledge that each member brings to a particular file like this.

The issues that have been raised in the past to the RCMP all bear down on this particular experience. We tried to encapsulate them as quickly as possible and ensure that both sides of the argument have been heard. In terms of amendments, both sides of the argument have been canvassed fully in this House.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we argue for more scrutiny, oversight and due diligence is the fact that the particular party and particular minister have a reputation now of launching bills that are half-baked and that have not been given the oversight and scrutiny they deserve.

I was here when the minister had to stand up and amend his own legislation because, even though he was warned all through the process of the legislation that certain elements offended the charter and were unconstitutional, et cetera, the Conservatives would not allow a single amendment. In fact, they have not allowed a single amendment to a single bill in the entire 41st Parliament. It is as if they have some of kind of monopoly on wisdom in this regard, but in actual fact, they make a lot of mistakes. I have a list here of some of the charter challenges on legislation from the government since 2007; two of them dealing with the RCMP and the Expenditure Restraint Act.

The Conservatives cannot tell me that they are not launching stuff into this House of Commons that may not have been vetted properly by the Department of Justice officials, as according to whistleblower Edgar Schmidt. In actual fact, bills arrive here in a state that should not be passed, that deserve to be analyzed further, criticized and scrutinized and have the merits of their arguments tested by legitimate debate in the House of Commons, the way God wanted it.

Mr. Speaker, I know that member is closer to God than I am, and so I will have to take his word on that.

However, I find the member's arguments a little puzzling. He said we have never allowed any amendments, that we are rigid in our position, but in the next breath he is saying the minister amends his legislation.

I have to say that we have listened to arguments, and where there are valid concerns and arguments, we amend it, as the member himself has indicated.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this afternoon seems quite paradoxical. Just when we are being told that debate has gone on long enough, the majority of the remarks coming from the Conservative bench are focusing on arguments or the bill. Yet this short, 30-minute window we have been given should be used to debate the time allocation motion, which, I would like to remind the House, is meant to be used as an exception.

What happened in committee or while this bill was being studied that would justify muzzling the members and shortening the time for debate when we know that enlightenment comes when ideas collide?

They are not debating that. They are debating the amendments we proposed, which were rejected. It makes no sense. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this whole situation.

I would like the minister to explain how the government can justify a time allocation motion and muzzling members.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I found the comments from members on the Conservative side to be very instructive to this particular debate on time allocation. What I heard the members from the Conservative side say is that there are some very important principles at stake here in terms of the substance of the bill, and why is it that the NDP would consistently oppose those principles?

That is my concern as well, because I have not heard any substantive arguments in the past 15 days of debate that would in fact indicate there is any problem with this substantive bill that is moving forward. Therefore, time allocation is the appropriate measure in these circumstances.

Michelle RempelConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill as well as hear my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, make a very strong argument on why this bill is necessary. Not only is the bill necessary, but it is timely.

We have heard members of the opposition stand up on this bill and talk about how these changes will make the RCMP function more effectively. We have heard from stakeholders within the organization, and without, talk about why these amendments and changes to the legislation are so important. The fact remains that amendments were made.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. The opposition has agreed to this principle. Therefore, my question to the minister is: Given this basic fact, why is it so important for us to pass the bill in a timely and efficient manner? Can the minister confirm that in this House there have been hours and hours of debate as well as committee testimony on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her work on this bill and for the question.

I do want to reiterate that, in fact, there have been many hours of debate—15 days—and that is quite a significant amount of debate. I am a little confused about one issue. I hear the Liberal position and I think it is a responsible position. The Liberals say that even though they disagree with us on some aspects, this would move the process forward in terms of enhancing the accountability of the RCMP.

On the other hand, the New Democrats consistently criticize the RCMP and suggest there is something untoward happening in the entire organization, and yet they are not even willing to agree on the fundamental principles that we need to enshrine in legislation to move that organization forward.